9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
1. Assessment of the value of imported plastic moulded components under DEEC Scheme. 2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: 1. The appellants imported plastic moulded components (Plastic Ball Pen parts) at a declared value of US $ 1.45 per kg under the DEEC Scheme. Customs sought to increase the assessable value based on a backward calculation from the retail price of complete ball pens in the market. The Additional Commissioner fixed the value at Rs. 0.83 per piece and imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000. The appellants appealed against this order, arguing that the value adopted by the Revenue was incorrect as it was based on the retail price of complete pens, while the imported goods were components without refills. They presented evidence, including a manufacturer's certificate, to support the genuineness of the invoiced price. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Revenue's appeal, imposing a penalty on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The Tribunal considered the submissions and evidence presented by both parties. The learned Consultant for the appellants argued that the Revenue's recalculation of the value was unjustified as there was no evidence to doubt the genuineness of the invoiced price from the foreign supplier. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, emphasizing that the Revenue failed to provide any proof to question the authenticity of the invoice price. They noted that plastic ball point pens vary in price based on quality and that the appellants had substantiated the correctness of the manufacturer's price through a certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal held that without evidence to doubt the invoice price's genuineness, the Revenue was not justified in increasing the assessable value of the goods. Consequently, they allowed the appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellants on these grounds, including setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
|
